Orders of the Day — Greater London Authority Bill — 11 Oct 2007 at 14:15

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

I welcome the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) to the Front Bench and to the Dispatch Box again after last night. During consideration of the Bill, he has moved from the Back Benches to the Front Bench and has seen it through every stage, as has the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake). They have lived with the Bill for longer than I have and I look forward to their contributions.

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) touched on the question of the budget and the budget-making process and powers. I can understand the superficial appeal of this amendment. It is reasonable to say that to a detached observer it may seem only fair that an assembly should be able to exercise its power to amend the Mayor's final draft consolidated budget by simple majority rather than the two-thirds majority currently required. However, the principle of the two thirds majority goes to the heart of the governance of the GLA-a governance and a model that has served London well since its introduction. I shall explain to the House why that principle is so important.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:-

The House divided: Ayes 278, Noes 165.

Debate in Parliament | Source |